Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the long-term outcome of periocular sebaceous gland carcinoma and factors predictive of tumor recurrence. METHODS: A retrospective case note review of all patients with periocular sebaceous gland carcinoma treated at the Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, United Kingdom, between 1992 and 1999. Patient age at time of surgery, tumor location, and treatment were recorded. The tumor dimensions and histopathologic description were correlated with tumor recurrence. The general practitioners were contacted to determine whether there had been any further tumor recurrences since the last entry in the hospital notes. RESULTS: A total of 11 cases (mean age, 75 years) were reviewed, of which 7 were female. The eyelids were involved in all but 2 cases, and maximum tumor dimension ranged from 6 to 25 mm. Three demonstrated pagetoid spread. Recurrence was seen in all tumors reported as incompletely excised (4 cases), of which only one demonstrated pagetoid spread. Tumour size was not predictive of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In our unit, the best prognostic factor for sebaceous gland carcinoma is a histologic report confirming complete excision of the tumor, whatever the tumor size or pattern of spread identified.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".